difference between Osteopathic and allopathic?

[FoughtFyr]

But the founders of chiropractic were all DOs.

chiropractors were DOs who wanted to remain old school. They did not approve of the AOA going mainstream. There was a big fight and they split up. Now chiropractors are like the radical wing.

Absolutely WRONG! Chiropractic has NOTHING AT ALL to do with osteopathy. Chiropractic was the sole invention of DD Palmer who was a "magnetic healer" and grocer at the time of chiropractic's "founding".

Here is some history for you: http://www.ncahf.org/articles/c-d/chiro.html

Please do not do our DO colleagues such a disservice as to compare them to chiropractors.

- H (MD BTW)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Absolutely WRONG! Chiropractic has NOTHING AT ALL to do with osteopathy. Chiropractic was the sole invention of DD Palmer who was a "magnetic healer" and grocer at the time of chiropractic's "founding".

Here is some history for you: http://www.ncahf.org/articles/c-d/chiro.html

Please do not do our DO colleagues such a disservice as to compare them to chiropractors.

- H (MD BTW)

A.T. Still (the founder of osteopathy) and D.D. Palmer both studied magic and metaphysics. Both attended many of the same spiritist meetings, for instance both attended the spiritualist meetings at Clinton, Iowa on a number of occasions.

The osteopath's goal was to move bones to improve circulation. The chiropractor's primary goal was to move bones to reduce pressure or the irritation of nerves, with the further goal of positively helping organs and tissue. A.T. Still & other osteopaths claimed Daniel D. Palmer visited Still at his house, but Palmer's descendants say it's not true.

Like Palmer, Dr. Andrew Taylor Still, who founded osteopathy, was interested in phrenology, hypnotism, spiritism, magic.

In an argument with Palmer, Still proclaims, "You're a thief!" shouted an angry Dr. Still, as D.D. Palmer confronted him. "You stole my work and labeled it `chiropractic. " Dynamic Chiropractic, Jan 27, 2003 by Frigard, L Ted



The reality is that Palmer and Still were both quacks and were both basically developing similar theories with different labels. Unfortunately, today DOs are only exposed to a revisionist history of their beloved founder which strives to remove the more embarrassing parts of his life from the minds of contemporaries. The fact that Still was a quack is only a problem for those who have created a house of cards based on the inaccurate and incomplete record of his life available to those within the DO fold. Look outside, and this information is readily available.

Of course, I am not suggesting that todays DOs need be stigmatized because of Still's shortcomings, I am only perplexed by the unwillingness to recognize them. I believe they can both accept the truth about Still AND be fully accepted as competent physicians. In fact, I think it is an important step to recognize historical truths.

 

[spicedmanna]

A.T. Still (the founder of osteopathy) and D.D. Palmer both studied magic and metaphysics. Both attended many of the same spiritist meetings, for instance both attended the spiritualist meetings at Clinton, Iowa on a number of occasions.

The osteopath's goal was to move bones to improve circulation. The chiropractor's primary goal was to move bones to reduce pressure or the irritation of nerves, with the further goal of positively helping organs and tissue. A.T. Still & other osteopaths claimed Daniel D. Palmer visited Still at his house, but Palmer's descendants say it's not true.

Like Palmer, Dr. Andrew Taylor Still, who founded osteopathy, was interested in phrenology, hypnotism, spiritism, magic.

In an argument with Palmer, Still proclaims, "You're a thief!" shouted an angry Dr. Still, as D.D. Palmer confronted him. "You stole my work and labeled it `chiropractic. " Dynamic Chiropractic, Jan 27, 2003 by Frigard, L Ted



The reality is that Palmer and Still were both quacks and were both basically developing similar theories with different labels. Unfortunately, today DOs are only exposed to a revisionist history of their beloved founder which strives to remove the more embarrassing parts of his life from the minds of contemporaries. The fact that Still was a quack is only a problem for those who have created a house of cards based on the inaccurate and incomplete record of his life available to those within the DO fold. Look outside, and this information is readily available.

Frankly, this isn't saying much and you aren't suggesting anything particularly profound. Medicine during those earlier times was very archaic across the board: allopathy, osteopathy, or whatever school of thought. There isn't a monopoly on questionable practices... Time marches on. Now move on to modern medicine where all physicians practice to the same standard of care.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Frankly, this isn't saying much and you aren't suggesting anything particularly profound. Medicine during those earlier times was very archaic across the board: allopathy, osteopathy, or whatever school of thought. There isn't a monopoly on questionable practices... Time marches on. Now move on to modern medicine where all physicians practice to the same standard of care.

Kind of what I was trying to say.

By way of comparison, I don't believe modern Psychiatrists find it necessary to defend the works of Freud, even though much of it is considered out-dated and flawed by today's standards. Still remains a sacred cow, however.

 

[GreenShirt]

The reality is that Palmer and Still were both quacks and were both basically developing similar theories with different labels. Unfortunately, today DOs are only exposed to a revisionist history of their beloved founder which strives to remove the more embarrassing parts of his life from the minds of contemporaries. The fact that Still was a quack is only a problem for those who have created a house of cards based on the inaccurate and incomplete record of his life available to those within the DO fold. Look outside, and this information is readily available.

Of course, I am not suggesting that todays DOs need be stigmatized because of Still's shortcomings, I am only perplexed by the unwillingness to recognize them. I believe they can both accept the truth about Still AND be fully accepted as competent physicians. In fact, I think it is an important step to recognize historical truths.

If I was alive in the 1800's and had Scarlet Fever, I could go to an MD or to Dr. Still. How would my treatment differ? Lets look:

MD Tx: Administer Calomel, a mercury-based compound which would make the patients teeth and hair fall out, followed up by some blood-letting.
DO Tx: Administer a manipulative treatment and allow the patient's own immune system to fight the infection.

Now, I think we can all agree that by modern standards both approaches would be considered "quakery". A more interesting question: Which treatment would you prefer to have done to you if you where alive at the time? The one that involved poisonous compounds and cutting you up? Probably not.

Towards the 1900's our knowledge of science improved and provided us with better treatments. It's true that Dr. Still resisted the idea of pharmaceuticals and vaccines for a long time, but it is largely due to the memories of watching patients poisoned and weakened by the rudimentary pharmacology practiced by the MDs of the era. Eventually, he did allow pharmacology to be taught as his school as the "materia medica" improved.

Bottom line: Dr. Still and many MD physicians of his time utilized practices that are considered "quakery" today. However, in the modern era both MD and DO schools teach evidence-based medicine in light of the scientific advances that have been made since the 1800s.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Bottom line: Dr. Still and many MD physicians of his time utilized practices that are considered "quakery" today. However, in the modern era both MD and DO schools teach evidence-based medicine in light of the scientific advances that have been made since the 1800s.

I do not disagree with that, or anything else you said, but....

Eventually, he did allow pharmacology to be taught as his school as the "materia medica" improved.

I am not sure how to reconcile that with Still's adamant insistence to the contrary. Two quotes from his writings come to mind:

"He who so forgets God's teaching as to use drugs forfeits the respect of this school and its teaching."

in the last words of A.T. Still before his death: "Keep it pure boys, Keep it pure."

My understanding is that it wasn't until after his death that DOs began to accept the use of pharmacology.

 

[spicedmanna]

I am not sure how to reconcile that with Still's adamant insistence to the contrary. Two quotes from his writings come to mind:

"He who so forgets God's teaching as to use drugs forfeits the respect of this school and its teaching."

in the last words of A.T. Still before his death: "Keep it pure boys, Keep it pure."

My understanding is that it wasn't until after his death that DOs began to accept the use of pharmacology.

How is this significant? I fail to see the point you are making. The end result is that both traditions practice to the same standard of care today. The past is the past. Both traditions had issues, but now the differences between the two schools are essentially historical.

 

[Kthanksbye]

How is this significant? I fail to see the point you are making. The end result is that both traditions practice to the same standard of care today. The past is the past. Both traditions had issues, but now the differences between the two schools are essentially historical.

I am not arguing that at all. However, the historical differences were the topic of the previous post and that was what I was addressing in my post (my point). You are right that today it is not significant and that they both practice the same standard of care, but that is no reason to gloss over the history.

I do not agree with the common DO assertion that they are in some way more "holistic" than so-called "allopathic" medicine. They are the same, as you say, and such a claim actually is outrageous.

Please do not confuse my historical criticisms of the DO traditions for my feelings regarding the current practice of DOs. They are not the same and I think we agree on this more than we disagree. I do not, however, use this as an excuse to gloss over history so that it is made more palatable to those who do not wish to look into those dark corners. It is not bad to do so. It does not reflect on the current status of modern DO physicians any more than reflecting on the shortcomings of historic MD figures reflects on the current status of modern MDs. I do not do so to build a case against DOs, but merely to understand the historical issues. I am not sure if I have answered your objection. Perhaps I do not understand your point.

 

[FoughtFyr]

A.T. Still (the founder of osteopathy) and D.D. Palmer both studied magic and metaphysics. Both attended many of the same spiritist meetings, for instance both attended the spiritualist meetings at Clinton, Iowa on a number of occasions.

The osteopath’s goal was to move bones to improve circulation. The chiropractor’s primary goal was to move bones to reduce pressure or the irritation of nerves, with the further goal of positively helping organs and tissue. A.T. Still & other osteopaths claimed Daniel D. Palmer visited Still at his house, but Palmer’s descendants say it’s not true.

Like Palmer, Dr. Andrew Taylor Still, who founded osteopathy, was interested in phrenology, hypnotism, spiritism, magic.

In an argument with Palmer, Still proclaims, "You're a thief!" shouted an angry Dr. Still, as D.D. Palmer confronted him. "You stole my work and labeled it `chiropractic. " Dynamic Chiropractic, Jan 27, 2003 by Frigard, L Ted

Not only is your source questionable, but you leave out two important facts. First, Still was trained (to the standards of the day) as an MD. Palmer was not. Second, Still never completely abandoned that which is now called "allopathic". He saw drugs and surgery as a "last resort". Palmer believed he completely understood "the meaning of life" and it was chiropractic. To this day, drugs and surgery are verboten in chiropractic.

This attempt to create a strawman argument by linking chiropractic to osteopathy not only serves no real purpose here but is also historically inaccurate.

- H

 

[GreenShirt]

I am not arguing that at all. However, the historical differences were the topic of the previous post and that was what I was addressing in my post (my point). You are right that today it is not significant and that they both practice the same standard of care, but that is no reason to gloss over the history.

Well, if you like historical quotes, he's some more from A.T. Still expressing his views on medication:

"I was born and raised to respect and confide in the remedial power of drugs, but after many years of practice in close conformity to the dictations of the very best medical authors and in consultation with representatives of various other schools, I failed to get from drugs the results I hoped for and I was face to face with the evidence that medication was not only unworthy but dangerous." (Autobiography of A.T. Still)

In the modern era we consider anyone who rejects pharmacology for alternative treatments stark raving mad, but we forget that in Still's time pharmacology was very rudimentary and more harmful than helpful. One might consider Still very wise for rejecting drugs based on his experience as a practicing MD. He looked to other methods to help his patients get better, some of which may seem nutty today like magnetism, but he observed his patient's responses to the various manipulative treatments and only kept those that did more good than harm. It was an evidence-based approach.

According to our textbooks, Still did allowing teaching on medication and vaccinations at his school in 1910 before his death. He wasn't happy about it but was largely goaded into it by the faculty employed at his school, many of which were former MDs. On his death bed, I'm sure he rejected it based on his principals and experience.

So you're right that he was against drugs but it was taught at his school before his death and in light of his experiences with drugs of his day, I don't necessarily think he was crazy for rejecting them.

 

[Pansit]

Well, if you like historical quotes, he's some more from A.T. Still expressing his views on medication:

"I was born and raised to respect and confide in the remedial power of drugs, but after many years of practice in close conformity to the dictations of the very best medical authors and in consultation with representatives of various other schools, I failed to get from drugs the results I hoped for and I was face to face with the evidence that medication was not only unworthy but dangerous." (Autobiography of A.T. Still)

In the modern era we consider anyone who rejects pharmacology for alternative treatments stark raving mad, but we forget that in Still's time pharmacology was very rudimentary and more harmful than helpful. One might consider Still very wise for rejecting drugs based on his experience as a practicing MD. He looked to other methods to help his patients get better, some of which may seem nutty today like magnetism, but he observed his patient's responses to the various manipulative treatments and only kept those that did more good than harm. It was an evidence-based approach.

According to our textbooks, Still did allowing teaching on medication and vaccinations at his school in 1910 before his death. He wasn't happy about it but was largely goaded into it by the faculty employed at his school, many of which were former MDs. On his death bed, I'm sure he rejected it based on his principals and experience.

So you're right that he was against drugs but it was taught at his school before his death and in light of his experiences with drugs of his day, I don't necessarily think he was crazy for rejecting them.

I dont understand this argument about AT Still...everything back in 1800's was some sort of quakery (as modern medicine had not yet come to true fruition), but the important fact is that the two professions eventually came around to what is now evidence-based medicine.

Hippocrates (the founder of Medicine!), is still revered today and guess what, he believed in blood letting and that the body contained Four Humours, so I dont understand why you have something agaisnt AT still (the founder of Osteopathic medicine) for having believed in things that may not be as true today either. The founder of professions are not often revered because they perfected that profession, but because they built a starting base for it...and that is exactly why AT Still is revered. I am sure he came up with techniques that have been outdated and done away with, although some of his earlier works are still being taught. Alot of what is OMM now have come from DO's later down the line (Muscle techniques, Myofascial..etc)

 

[GreenShirt]

I dont understand this argument about AT Still...everything back in 1800's was some sort of quakery (as modern medicine had not yet come to true fruition), but the important fact is that the two professions eventually came around to what is now evidence-based medicine.

Hippocrates (the founder of Medicine!), is still revered today and guess what, he believed in blood letting and that the body contained Four Humours, so I dont understand why you have something agaisnt AT still (the founder of Osteopathic medicine) for having believed in things that may not be as true today either. The founder of professions are not often revered because they perfected that profession, but because they built a starting base for it...and that is exactly why AT Still is revered. I am sure he came up with techniques that have been outdated and done away with, although some of his earlier works are still being taught. Alot of what is OMM now have come from DO's later down the line (Muscle techniques, Myofascial..etc)

I was responding to posts made by kthanksbye which insinuated that A.T. Still was a quack and that DOs have revised history to make him sound like an idol. My point was that if you look back at A.T. Still from a modern perspective he may appear loony, but if you understand the historical context in which he practiced his logic is in fact quite sound.

 

[Pansit]

I was responding to posts made by kthanksbye which insinuated that A.T. Still was a quack and that DOs have revised history to make him sound like an idol. My point was that if you look back at A.T. Still from a modern perspective he may appear loony, but if you understand the historical context in which he practiced his logic is in fact quite sound.

sorry, I was actually responding to kthanks but I accidently quoted you...

 

[Perrotfish]

How is this significant? I fail to see the point you are making. The end result is that both traditions practice to the same standard of care today. The past is the past. Both traditions had issues, but now the differences between the two schools are essentially historical.

If osteo practices the same standard of care as allo do you believe there should have different initials at all? Do you think that DO schools should therefore be judged strictly on their facilities, goals, and the statistics of their applicant pool? If your arguing that they lead to the same standard of care as MD, it seems to make sense to evaluate the DO schools by the same standard that people use to compare MD schools, rather than put them in a seperate 'league', so to speak.

 

[Dienekes]

So I see you all went ahead and passed out the rulers or calipers as the case may necessitate......strong work......

I suggest a new TOS policy: anyone starting an MD vs DO or "What's the difference between MD and DO?" thread is immediately banned.

 

[Dienekes]

.

 

[JaggerPlate]

I have a better question for this thread (pours gasoline on fire) ...

Why the hell do pre-meds think they know anything?? Everyone in this thread bagging on DOs, or saying that they are inferior to MD is some 18 year old loser, hunched over a Bio 1 book in a dark corner of their dorm. How about this ... if you have gone through a DO school or an MD school, and feel a. that your education was inferior, and you are now suffering in life (in the case that you went DO) or b. You honestly look down on DOs and would never respect them as your equal (in the case of an MD school) please, voice your opinions. However, unless you can legally introduce yourself as 'Dr,' instead of pre-med, cronic spazz ... don't declare such scripture.

Is there anything wrong with saying, 'I'm pre-med, and I'm content on going MD for my own personal reasons' ... NO. Is there something wrong with saying:' I've taken a year of lower div science classes ... and because of this I know that DOs will suffer in life, and are second rate MDs' ... yes.

So, all pre-meds (myself included), unless you meet the standards I just laid forth ... shut up

 

[GreenShirt]

If osteo practices the same standard of care as allo do you believe there should have different initials at all? Do you think that DO schools should therefore be judged strictly on their facilities, goals, and the statistics of their applicant pool? If your arguing that they lead to the same standard of care as MD, it seems to make sense to evaluate the DO schools by the same standard that people use to compare MD schools, rather than put them in a seperate 'league', so to speak.

I'm no statistician, but I think your post has two flaws:
1) It assumes that separate can't mean equal. It is possible to have two separate entities that provide the same services.
2) Standard of care would be better measured by tracking factors surrounding patient care such as improvement rate, patient satisfaction, or cost effectiveness of treatment rather than on the facility in which the doctor went to school. Since DOs work at the same hospitals as MDs, these comparisons can easily be made. I seriously doubt insurance companies would be willing to back DOs if there standard of care were lower.

....and to satiate JaggerPlate, I'm an MS-I.

 

[Dienekes]

I have a better question for this thread (pours gasoline on fire) ...

Why the hell do pre-meds think they know anything?? Everyone in this thread bagging on DOs, or saying that they are inferior to MD is some 18 year old loser, hunched over a Bio 1 book in a dark corner of their dorm. How about this ... if you have gone through a DO school or an MD school, and feel a. that your education was inferior, and you are now suffering in life (in the case that you went DO) or b. You honestly look down on DOs and would never respect them as your equal (in the case of an MD school) please, voice your opinions. However, unless you can legally introduce yourself as 'Dr,' instead of pre-med, cronic spazz ... don't declare such scripture.

Is there anything wrong with saying, 'I'm pre-med, and I'm content on going MD for my own personal reasons' ... NO. Is there something wrong with saying:' I've taken a year of lower div science classes ... and because of this I know that DOs will suffer in life, and are second rate MDs' ... yes.

So, all pre-meds (myself included), unless you meet the standards I just laid forth ... shut up

You are now officially one of my favorite people on SDN.

 

[PeepshowJohnny]

I have a better question for this thread (pours gasoline on fire) ...

Why the hell do pre-meds think they know anything?? Everyone in this thread bagging on DOs, or saying that they are inferior to MD is some 18 year old loser, hunched over a Bio 1 book in a dark corner of their dorm. How about this ... if you have gone through a DO school or an MD school, and feel a. that your education was inferior, and you are now suffering in life (in the case that you went DO) or b. You honestly look down on DOs and would never respect them as your equal (in the case of an MD school) please, voice your opinions. However, unless you can legally introduce yourself as 'Dr,' instead of pre-med, cronic spazz ... don't declare such scripture.

Is there anything wrong with saying, 'I'm pre-med, and I'm content on going MD for my own personal reasons' ... NO. Is there something wrong with saying:' I've taken a year of lower div science classes ... and because of this I know that DOs will suffer in life, and are second rate MDs' ... yes.

So, all pre-meds (myself included), unless you meet the standards I just laid forth ... shut up

 

[FoughtFyr]

I have a better question for this thread (pours gasoline on fire) ...

Why the hell do pre-meds think they know anything?? Everyone in this thread bagging on DOs, or saying that they are inferior to MD is some 18 year old loser, hunched over a Bio 1 book in a dark corner of their dorm. How about this ... if you have gone through a DO school or an MD school, and feel a. that your education was inferior, and you are now suffering in life (in the case that you went DO) or b. You honestly look down on DOs and would never respect them as your equal (in the case of an MD school) please, voice your opinions. However, unless you can legally introduce yourself as 'Dr,' instead of pre-med, cronic spazz ... don't declare such scripture.

Is there anything wrong with saying, 'I'm pre-med, and I'm content on going MD for my own personal reasons' ... NO. Is there something wrong with saying:' I've taken a year of lower div science classes ... and because of this I know that DOs will suffer in life, and are second rate MDs' ... yes.

So, all pre-meds (myself included), unless you meet the standards I just laid forth ... shut up

As an MD, who trained at the Mayo Clinic, one of the most hardcore "allopathic" institutions in the country, I have to tell you yours is one of my favorite SDN posts ever. Look, when (and for many of those offering these crackpot views - if) you get into and through medical school, you will either work closely with DOs or you will be a DO. Guess what? You will not care what initials are on your fellow interns coat, you will only care that they are on time to relieve you. DOs do residencies and are on staff at just about every academic institution in the country. If you can't come to grips with that, get out of medicine. Truthfully, worrying about which degree is held once you reach residency or professional life is like tying to compare high school GPAs once you begin college. NO ONE WHO MATTERS, CARES! You are not going to go to your professor and argue that you should receive a higher grade in a college course because of where you went to high school. You should realize that is how ridiculous those of you who have yet to gain admission to, yet alone complete medical school, sound when you bash DOs.

As for the poster who suggested that the initials should be the same if the standard of care is - who cares? If DOs want to recognize their historic roots by being DOs, wonderful. You do realize that those holding MBBS degrees are also held to the same standards as MDs? Should they suddenly declare their degrees doctorates as well and become "MD"s (completely disregarding the traditions of their countries)?

- H

 

[flaahless]

As an MD, who trained at the Mayo Clinic, one of the most hardcore "allopathic" institutions in the country, I have to tell you yours is one of my favorite SDN posts ever. Look, when (and for many of those offering these crackpot views - if) you get into and through medical school, you will either work closely with DOs or you will be a DO. Guess what? You will not care what initials are on your fellow interns coat, you will only care that they are on time to relieve you. DOs do residencies and are on staff at just about every academic institution in the country. If you can't come to grips with that, get out of medicine. Truthfully, worrying about which degree is held once you reach residency or professional life is like tying to compare high school GPAs once you begin college. NO ONE WHO MATTERS, CARES! You are not going to go to your professor and argue that you should receive a higher grade in a college course because of where you went to high school. You should realize that is how ridiculous those of you who have yet to gain admission to, yet alone complete medical school, sound when you bash DOs.

As for the poster who suggested that the initials should be the same if the standard of care is - who cares? If DOs want to recognize their historic roots by being DOs, wonderful. You do realize that those holding MBBS degrees are also held to the same standards as MDs? Should they suddenly declare their degrees doctorates as well and become "MD"s (completely disregarding the traditions of the counties)?

- H

 

[Dienekes]

As an MD, who trained at the Mayo Clinic, one of the most hardcore "allopathic" institutions in the country, I have to tell you yours is one of my favorite SDN posts ever. Look, when (and for many of those offering these crackpot views - if) you get into and through medical school, you will either work closely with DOs or you will be a DO. Guess what? You will not care what initials are on your fellow interns coat, you will only care that they are on time to relieve you. DOs do residencies and are on staff at just about every academic institution in the country. If you can't come to grips with that, get out of medicine. Truthfully, worrying about which degree is held once you reach residency or professional life is like tying to compare high school GPAs once you begin college. NO ONE WHO MATTERS, CARES! You are not going to go to your professor and argue that you should receive a higher grade in a college course because of where you went to high school. You should realize that is how ridiculous those of you who have yet to gain admission to, yet alone complete medical school, sound when you bash DOs.

As for the poster who suggested that the initials should be the same if the standard of care is - who cares? If DOs want to recognize their historic roots by being DOs, wonderful. You do realize that those holding MBBS degrees are also held to the same standards as MDs? Should they suddenly declare their degrees doctorates as well and become "MD"s (completely disregarding the traditions of the counties)?

- H

"....and stay down bitch." That was great.....